Sure that makes sense if when I drive to work I say to myself "I know it's illegal to drive a car because it kills people, but I don't really care who I kill because I want to save a couple of bucks".

And then following that I say "also I'll sell my driving services to hundreds of thousands but lie to them about how I get them to work, because if they knew I was driving they'd balk because they don't want blood on their hands"

And then following that I say "also I'll invest in complex technology to hide my car from the police so that I will never be caught"

With those minor modifications your scenario is a totally reasonable analogy.

That seems like an argument to introduce incentive systems against driving to work, not an argument to remove incentive systems against other things that kill.

(It doesn't have to be jail time: it could involve expanding public transit, or promoting urbanism over suburbanism, or introducing congestion charges, or regulating car ownership heavily, or lowering speed limits, or lots of other things.)

That’s not comparable. A commute kills perhaps a millionth or a billionth of a person. It’s sensible to focus much more attention on individual decisions that kill hundreds or thousands.

I'd bet he also drove to work.

Far more people die in accidents than from emissions, but if people stopped driving it would indirectly cost lives in terms of econ stagnation, I suppose

Or perhaps this is a very valid way to look at things and it will make you reconsider driving a gasoline vehicle if you can.

Personally I have the option to ride a bike and electric (nuclear+hydro) trains instead of driving a car, so that's what I do.

Life is a zero sum game?